CodeShovel: Constructing Method-Level Source Code Histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Source code histories are commonly used by developers and researchers to reason about how software evolves. Through a survey with 42 professional software developers, we learned that developers face significant mismatches between the output provided by developers' existing tools for examining source code histories and what they need to successfully complete their historical analysis tasks. To address these shortcomings, we propose CodeShovel, a tool for uncovering method histories that quickly produces complete and accurate change histories for 90% methods (including 97% of all method changes) outperforming leading tools from both research (e.g, FinerGit) and practice (e.g., IntelliJ / git log). CodeShovel helps developers to navigate the entire history of source code methods so they can better understand how the method evolved. A field study on industrial code bases with 16 industrial developers confirmed our empirical findings of CodeShovel's correctness, low runtime overheads, and additionally showed that the approach can be useful for a wide range of industrial development tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".